This work evaluates the feasibility of renewable jet-fuel production from waste cooking oil (WCO) via catalytic transfer hydrogenation (CTH) using isopropanol as hydrogen donor. Results were compared to a commercial hydroprocessed renewable jet (HRJ) fuel technology, employing process simulation-based techno-economic analysis (TEA) and life-cycle assessment (LCA). The two routes were compared in terms of product yield, energy consumption, economic and environmental metrics, and allocation methods. The total capital expenditure of CTH plant (7.3M$) was significantly lower than that of HRJ ($149.7M$). The annual revenues were comparable (∼150M$/year), due to similar fuel yields. To be profitable, the liquid fuel should be sold at $3.00/gal and $1.67/gal for CTH and HRJ, respectively. The cumulative fossil energy demand (CED) of HRJ was 1.6 times that of CTH and the total 100-year GWP of CTH was 8% less than HRJ's, with both systems not sequestering CO2 through co-product offsets. Mass-, energy-, and market-value allocations were utilized. Sensitivity analysis indicated that both systems were driven by transportation factors and not process inputs. Trend analysis on CTH's energy-return-on-investment (EROI) showed that wide improvements could be made in energy efficiency (EROI = 10.30–11.30). From an investment/construction perspective, CTH (95% cheaper) appears to outperform HRJ at similar revenues.

Techno-economic analysis and life-cycle assessment of jet fuels production from waste cooking oil via in situ catalytic transfer hydrogenation

Barbera E.;Bertucco A.;
2020

Abstract

This work evaluates the feasibility of renewable jet-fuel production from waste cooking oil (WCO) via catalytic transfer hydrogenation (CTH) using isopropanol as hydrogen donor. Results were compared to a commercial hydroprocessed renewable jet (HRJ) fuel technology, employing process simulation-based techno-economic analysis (TEA) and life-cycle assessment (LCA). The two routes were compared in terms of product yield, energy consumption, economic and environmental metrics, and allocation methods. The total capital expenditure of CTH plant (7.3M$) was significantly lower than that of HRJ ($149.7M$). The annual revenues were comparable (∼150M$/year), due to similar fuel yields. To be profitable, the liquid fuel should be sold at $3.00/gal and $1.67/gal for CTH and HRJ, respectively. The cumulative fossil energy demand (CED) of HRJ was 1.6 times that of CTH and the total 100-year GWP of CTH was 8% less than HRJ's, with both systems not sequestering CO2 through co-product offsets. Mass-, energy-, and market-value allocations were utilized. Sensitivity analysis indicated that both systems were driven by transportation factors and not process inputs. Trend analysis on CTH's energy-return-on-investment (EROI) showed that wide improvements could be made in energy efficiency (EROI = 10.30–11.30). From an investment/construction perspective, CTH (95% cheaper) appears to outperform HRJ at similar revenues.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/3388311
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 12
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 10
social impact